Garbin: Second Marcos impeachment bid is policy critique, not constitutional breach

House Committee on Justice Vice Chair Alfredo A. Garbin Jr. on Wednesday said the second impeachment complaint against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. amounts to a policy critique and fails to meet the constitutional threshold required for impeachment.

“So my take on this, Madam Chair, is that this pleads a policy critique. It does not plead an impeachable offense nor a willful constitutional breach,” Garbin told the House Committee on Justice, chaired by Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro.

Garbin made the remarks as the panel reviewed the impeachment complaint filed by former lawmaker Liza Maza and several others, and endorsed by the Makabayan bloc.

The vice chair took issue with allegations that the President institutionalized corruption through the so-called “BBM parametric formula” allegedly used by the Department of Public Works and Highways in infrastructure planning.

“Let me state, Madam Chair, that this is not sufficient in substance,” Garbin said, rejecting claims that the planning framework itself constitutes a corruption scheme.

Garbin said the complaint rests on what he described as a flawed premise that policy prioritization in government budgeting is inherently corrupt.

“A planning allocation formula is not illegal on its face. Government budgeting necessarily involves policy priorities,” he said.

He added that references in the complaint to the “priorities of leaders” do not establish corruption.

“The phrase ‘priorities of leaders,’ even if quoted, is not proof of graft,” Garbin said, noting that such considerations are “consistent with political accountability in appropriations, especially where Congress itself sets national priorities.”

Garbin also faulted the complaint for failing to identify any specific constitutional violation.

“The complaint does not cite a constitutional provision prohibiting executive consideration of policy priorities in infrastructure programming,” he said.

The lawmaker said the filing does not allege any concrete act by the President amounting to corruption, nor does it show that Marcos authored, ordered, or used the formula to commit a corrupt act.

“The complaint infers presidential culpability from branding BBM and from the existence of managed stage. That is not ultimate facts, Madam Chair. It is an argument,” Garbin added.

He also pointed to what he described as a critical evidentiary gap.

“No annex authentic DPWH document is shown in the filed copy,” Garbin said, adding that while sources were cited, the complaint did not attach the complete DPWH policy issuance as a certified annex for committee verification.

“Without the annexes, the committee is being asked to accept the complainant’s characterization rather than reviewing the underlying document,” he added.